US Military Deaths in Afghanistan Hit 2000 - Wall Street Journal [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
UNKLE - In A State (lyrics)My mind is in a state 'Cuz all I seem to do is tempt my fate Well I try a real space But all the while, I'm crashing at the gate This time... This time... Reality struck me between the eyes My mind is in a state 'Cuz everything I'm missing comes too late So I try and disappear But there is only one way out of here This time... This time... Reality struck me between the eyes My mind is in a state But all I need to do is change my pace And I know there's fear to face But happiness is found in its embrace This time... This time... This time... This time... This time... This time...
... claims Ohio State doctored game film. Joe Rexrode and Drew Sharp, Detroit Free PressShare. Comments. 2012-09-29 Mark Dantonio Michigan State. A member of Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio's staff accused Ohio State of doctoring game film. Michigan State claims Ohio State doctored game film
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistanâ€"U.S. military deaths in the Afghan war have reached 2,000, a cold reminder of the human cost of an 11-year-old conflict that now garners little public interest at home as the U.S. prepares to withdraw most of its combat forces by the end of 2014.
The toll has climbed steadily in recent months with a spate of attacks by Afghan army and policeâ€"supposed alliesâ€"against American and North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops. That has raised troubling questions about whether countries in the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan will achieve their aim of helping the government in Kabul and its forces stand on their own after most foreign troops depart in little more than two years.
On Sunday, a U.S. official confirmed the latest death, saying that an international service member killed in an apparent insider attack by Afghan forces in the east of the country late Saturday was American. A civilian contractor with NATO and at least two Afghan soldiers also died in the attack, according to a coalition statement and Afghan provincial officials. The U.S. official spoke on condition of anonymity because the nationality of those killed had not been formally released. Names of the dead are usually released after their families or next-of-kin are notified, a process that can take several days. The nationality of the civilian was also not disclosed.
In addition to the 2,000 Americans killed since the Afghan war began on Oct. 7, 2001, at least 1,190 more coalition troops from other countries have also died, according to iCasualties.org, an independent organization that tracks the deaths.
According to the Afghanistan index kept by the Washington-based research center Brookings Institution, about 40% of the American deaths were caused by improvised explosive devices. The majority of those were after 2009, when President Barack Obama ordered a surge that sent in 33,000 additional troops to combat heightened Taliban activity. The surge brought the total number of American troops to 101,000, the peak for the entire war.
According to Brookings, hostile fire was the second most common cause of death, accounting for nearly 31% of Americans killed.
Tracking deaths of Afghan civilians is much more difficult. According to the United Nations, 13,431 civilians were killed in the Afghan conflict between 2007, when the U.N. began keeping statistics, and the end of August. Going back to the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, most estimates put the number of Afghan civilian deaths in the war at more than 20,000.
The number of American dead reflects an Associated Press count of those members of the armed services killed inside Afghanistan since the U.S.-led invasion began. Some other news organizations use a count that also includes those killed outside Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, the global antiterror campaign led by then-President George W. Bush.
The 2001 invasion targeted al Qaeda and its Taliban allies shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, which claimed nearly 3,000 lives.
Victory in Afghanistan seemed to come quickly. Kabul fell within weeks, and the hard-line Taliban regime was toppled with few U.S. casualties.
But the Bush administration's shift toward war with Iraq left the Western powers without enough resources on the ground, so by 2006 the Taliban had regrouped into a serious military threat.
Mr. Obama deployed more troops to Afghanistan and casualties have increased sharply in recent years. But the American public grew weary of having its military in a perpetual state of conflict, especially after the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq at the end of last year. That war, which began with a U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein, cost the lives of nearly 4,500 U.S. troops, more than twice as many as have died in Afghanistan so far.
"The tally is modest by the standards of war historically, but every fatality is a tragedy and 11 years is too long," said Michael O'Hanlon, a fellow at the Brookings. "All that is internalized, however, in an American public that has been watching this campaign for a long time. More newsworthy right now are the insider attacks and the sense of hopelessness they convey to many. "
Attacks by Afghan soldiers or policeâ€"or insurgents disguised in their uniformsâ€"have killed 52 American and other NATO troops so far this year.
The so-called insider attacks are considered one of the most serious threats to the U.S. exit strategy from the country. In its latest incarnation, that strategy has focused on training Afghan forces to take over security nationwideâ€"allowing most foreign troops to go home by the end of 2014.
Although Mr. Obama has pledged that most U.S. combat troops will leave by the end of 2014, American, NATO and allied troops are still dying in Afghanistan at a rate of one a day.
Even with 33,000 American troops back home, the U.S.-led coalition will still have 108,000 troopsâ€"including 68,000 from the U.S.â€"fighting in Afghanistan at the end of this year. Many of those will be training the Afghan National Security Forces that are to replace them.
"There is a challenge for the administration," Mr. O'Hanlon said, "to remind people in the face of such bad news why this campaign requires more perseverance."
Suggest US Military Deaths in Afghanistan Hit 2000 - Wall Street Journal Articles Question by MortalGuardian: Why do some individuals bring up the "separation of church and state" in reference to gay marriage? Firstly, I do not intend to offend anyone here. I have noticed that some people will invoke the "separation of church and state" idea, often in regards to gay marriage. But there is no mention of the separation of church and state in the Constitution. The notion of separation of religion and government comes from various court cases. So why do people bring it up? Best answer for Why do some individuals bring up the "separation of church and state" in reference to gay marriage?:
Answer by Maurog IV
Because marriage is a legal contract which belongs to the court and cases thereof.
Answer by Mr. Bluelight
Marriage is a religious issue. Personally, I don't think the government should recognize any marriage at all. Let them all be civil unions. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - First Amendment. How do you have no establishment of religion without separation of church and state? The Supreme Court said that was the intent of the passage, as it was written by Thomas Jefferson and that's how he explained in his personal papers what it meant.
Answer by Sunday Crone
I believe the problem lies in the inability for Gays to have a license issued and there for having a legal marriage. Having a Church ceremony is not necessarily does not necessary mean it was a legal ceremony conducted with a license. I do not understand the separation of church & State in reference to gay marriage as
Answer by Ben
They have hurt feelings . The government should not decide who gets married. It is a personal issue.
Answer by Huh?
The Separation of Church and State did not come from "court cases." The term come s from a letter from President Thomas Jefferson discussing the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Jefferson quotes the Establishment clause and then says "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Which history has paraphrased as a separation of church and state. It was clearly the intent of the Founding Fathers that there be a separation of church and state. Recent arguments by conservative Christians denying that fact are attempts at revisionist history. As for Gay Marriage, the country has always allowed for civil marriages, not bound by any religious trappings. No one is suggesting a church be forced to perform gay marriages, but if the government is going to give specials privileges to married couples and not to gay couples, there is a problem. with that @servant of God I just showed that Thomas Jefferson supported a separation of church and state The Treaty of Tripoli explicitly says that the United States is not a Christian Nation. The treaty was negotiated under George Washington and was sent to the Senate for ratification by President John Adams. So their are two more founding fathers that didn't think the US was a christian nation. So who were these founding fathers that considered us a christian nation? Washington, Jefferson and Adams, not only essential to the founding of the Country, they are also the first three Presidents didn't think we were a christian nation. so, what makes you think they didn't think of the Federal Government as anything but secular?
Answer by servant of God
Yes, you are correct.....those involved in the US constitution were men of God . They founded the USA with firm foundation in God. Separation of church & state was made up by Godless men. People bring it up as it is their only excuse & means to live their Godless, sinful lifestyle.
Answer by Chargeman
One's views on gay marriage may be a religious choice and that right is clearly protected by the First Amendment, but the United States government, state, local, or federal have no right to determine the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the right to marry based off religious grounds. That is clearly a violation of the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. And yes, separation of church and state is not technically in the Constitution but that concept was adopted by many founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson as the logical way to interpret the first amendment. The bottom line is that this is not a Christian Nation, but a nation where the majority are christians, Christians who have every right to follow their religion, as long as they don't ask the government to enforce their own personal views.
Answer by Matthew
Those are the same people that bring up Thomas Jefferson as their governmental religious hero : "In 1778 Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy" Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Proportioning Crimes and Punishments 1778 Papers 2:492--504 LIVE LINK http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIIs10.html
Answer by pÇÊžÉ"Ä±Ê É¥É"ʇıÊâ„¢ OfTheWest
People bring it up because the anti-same sex marriage agenda is entirely faith based. Since marriage is a legal contract recognized by The State it falls under The Constitutional rights and privileges of all American citizens and denying same sex couples the same rights and privileges as hetero couples is a direct violation. {{{Guardian}}}
Answer by Michael
The first amendment actually does establish the US as a religiously neutral nation. The opposition to gay marriage is pretty much 100% religious. All the individuals who oppose it are religious, and they oppose it for religious reasons. In other words there is no reason to ban gay marriage that the government can legally recognise.
Answer by PastorsRUs
People want to live the way they want to, and God expressly created marriage to be between a man and a woman when He gave Adam to Eve, so they rebel against that and want society and self to legislate how to live and love and not God. Scripture does say that there is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is (eternal) death.
Answer by Bruce
Probably they want to argue that God's view of marriage is irrelevant, and that the state should either have nothing to do with marriage (extreme libertarianism) or that only the state should b e involved. As you mention, the Constitution says nothing about a separation of church and state. It says the state cannot start a public church, and that the state cannot interfere with the free exercise of religion. Thus, the First Amendment ONLY restricts the state. Since God designed humans, our human design or "nature" is clearly relevant to the discussion. Obviously, only the sexual mating of a man and woman can beget a child. Children take about two decades to mature, which means they need a permanent mother-father team. From purely secular self-interest, the state has an interest in promoting marriage. The cost of raising a child is about $ 227,000 (see link). The government, groaning under $ 15 trillion in debt, can't take on that burden. Moreover, kids raised by single parents tend to be less healthy, poorer, lower achieving in school, and more likely to commit crimes. The family is the bedrock of society, and the permanent mating relationship of marriage is only way to build a stable, educating, and nurturing family. Cheers, Bruce
Machinima Music Videos - Porter Robinson - The State (Battlefield 3 Machinima Music Video by Quantic Media)www.youtube.com Click here to watch Black Label Society ft. Zakk Wylde - Crazy Horse (Exclusive Minecraft Machinima Music Video) Porter Robinson - The State (Battlefield 3 Machinima Music Video by Quantic Media) Machinima Music Video Series World Premiere! Debut of the Machinima music video for the brand new track "The State" by PORTER ROBINSON, featuring never-before-seen Battlefield 3 multiplayer footage! Get this track and more by Porter Robinson here: bit.ly Quantic Media is pleased to share with you a very special video, the very first Battlefield 3 montage on Machinima. We present to you the beginning of an incredible and authentic experience that only Battlefield 3 can bring. Please consider subscribing to our YouTube channel for the latest and greatest gaming videos as well as future Battlefield 3 content. A like and a favorite would really help us out! Thank you for watching. Also check out the video for "Spitfire" by PORTER ROBIN SON, directed by Saman Keshavarz: www.youtube.com For more info on Porter Robinson, like him on Facebook and visit him on Twitter: www.facebook.com twitter.com DIRECTOR'S CHANNEL (+Subscribe): www.youtube.com www.youtube.com Editor: www.youtube.com Subscribe now! (www.youtube.com DIRECTOR'S TWITTER (+Follow): twitter.com DIRECTOR'S FACEBOOK (+Like): www.facebook.com DIRECTOR'S WEBSITE: www.quanticgaming.com This video will show you How to make a music video How to become an enemy of the state How to listen to Porter Robinson How to get ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment